Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2006 - 40107/02
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 40107/02

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  Nevertheless, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A).

  The Court reiterates that, in assessing the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings in question, it is necessary to have regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicants and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002-VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  Britische DNA-Datenbanken verstoßen gegen die Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008-...).

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's illnesses or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002-VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's illnesses or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  However, the court decisions on the applicant's detention do not fully satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4. The decisions in question seem to reiterate a standard set of grounds for the applicant's detention without any examination of the plausibility of such grounds in the circumstances of the applicant's particular situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 111-112, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's illnesses or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  However, the Court's concern is to facilitate the rapid and effective suppression of a shortcoming found in the national system of protection of human rights (see Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 125, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  In this connection the Court reiterates that the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine, nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, § 76, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  SVERSHOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 11098/03

  SHAVROV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 10636/06

  MARIA VIOLETA LAZARESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 26127/03

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Moreover, the Court concluded that this has been a recurrent issue in the case-law against Ukraine stemming from legislative lacunae (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 98, 10 February 2011, not yet final).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

  60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 34015/07

  ZHERDEV v. UKRAINE

  The applicant, relying in particular on the Court's judgment in Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, §§ 98 and 101, 10 February 2011), maintained that his detention in the relevant period had been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has often found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases against Ukraine on the basis that, even for lengthy periods of detention, the domestic courts referred to the same set of grounds, if any, throughout the period of the applicant's detention (see, for example, Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 59-61, 6 November 2008, and Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 80-81 and 99, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  VASILIY IVASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 12222/09

  ORLOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  This problem has been found to be of a structural nature in Ukraine at the relevant time (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 98, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 34515/04

  KULIK v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, on a number of occasions the Court has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of overcrowding and unsanitary environment in the same pre-trial detention centre during the same period of time - see Gavula v. Ukraine, no. 52652/07, 16 May 2013 (concerning the period from 26 February 2003 until August 2010); Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, 19 October 2006 (concerning the period from 3 August 1999 until 6 June 2000); and Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011 (concerning the period from 20 April 2001 until 4 August 2003).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 71660/11

  BARYSHEVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  The Court has often found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases against Ukraine on the basis that, even for lengthy periods of detention, the domestic courts referred to the same set of grounds, if any, throughout the period of the applicant's detention (see, e.g., Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 59-61, 6 November 2008, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 80-81 and 99, 10 February 2011; Gerashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 20602/05, § 103, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 29.01.2014 - 29085/06

  LYUBARETS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Ukraine, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011; Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, 12 March 2009; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 697/07

  KOLESNIKOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in similar circumstances (see, among many other authorities, Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2008; Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 63-64, 19 February 2009; and Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 79-81, 99 and 101, 10 February 2011).